This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

This sounds a bit like an oxymoron in the fact our whole economic system has changed quite a bit in the past 50 or so years. I agree this was done slowly, but the two economic systems are far from a middle ground. They are quite extreme, ideology speaking, from one another.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

Originally Posted by Tothian

Then you will not respect me - but that's alright because I stand up for what I believe in and would rather be hated for that than liked for what I'm not. I don't cave in to pressure to "compromise" what I believe in - what is right and wrong. Liberals really do hate freedom and it's obvious from everything. They also want to turn America away from God.

Then it is probably a good thing if you didn't run for political office! Your statements about liberals hating freedom are baseless as you give zero reasons, more like what a teenager does when asked to explain something. it is always EVERYTHING...

I have found most diehard CONs want the freedoms they value but not so much the freedoms others want. They want in regards to the 2nd A but also want to step in between a doctor and his patient when it comes to a woman's right to chose.

Remind me who put us on the NSA into everything path? I didn't realize BushII was a liberal...

Your victimization of God is nothing new in here. Well worn and BS. I'd say the CONs are trying a silly desperate last gasp attempt to put religious symbols in places they never were before. Here in Oklahoma the Speaker wants a chapel built into the state house. Never had one before, can't say we need to spend that sort of money now.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

Originally Posted by notquiteright

Then it is probably a good thing if you didn't run for political office! Your statements about liberals hating freedom are baseless as you give zero reasons, more like what a teenager does when asked to explain something. it is always EVERYTHING...

I have found most diehard CONs want the freedoms they value but not so much the freedoms others want. They want in regards to the 2nd A but also want to step in between a doctor and his patient when it comes to a woman's right to chose.

Remind me who put us on the NSA into everything path? I didn't realize BushII was a liberal...

Your victimization of God is nothing new in here. Well worn and BS. I'd say the CONs are trying a silly desperate last gasp attempt to put religious symbols in places they never were before. Here in Oklahoma the Speaker wants a chapel built into the state house. Never had one before, can't say we need to spend that sort of money now.

1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.

2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?

3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

Originally Posted by Tothian

1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.

2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?

3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.

4- We need God in America.

So let me get this KEY-rect, you held an unopposed administrative position for one term. Thinking 'more people like you' was a big part of the problem with government of late. Refusing to do anything until you got your way, but in the end the TPs had to back down.

I agree people have a right to own and carry firearms but as the Supreme Court has said, not right in unlimited. There your extremism shows and by all means be VERY offended- the fetus isn't a baby yet, not viable, can't live on it's own and has been ruled repeatedly as legal to have aborted before a certain stage of development. but CONs are not trying to overturn the LAW, they are trying to step between a doctor and his patient in a LEGAL procedure. Now once that fetus develops to viable and pops the chute then it is murder and punishable by law.

Odd that you say both Bushes were very liberal. I don't recall the voters being liberals who voted for both men a total of three times. I have noticed the extreme radical right calls everyone a liberal, but themselves of course. neither was very liberal, BushI was an old school moderate conservative and BushII a COn with very poor management skills and a rudderless agenda.

But we get to your core belief, you think CONs want a balanced budget, no most want far less social spending and the same or more in the DoD. balancing the budget is a very secondary goal.

Never said we should kick God out of America, I am inclusive. What we don't need is this CON attempt to push religious symbols into places they never were before.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

But we get to your core belief, you think CONs want a balanced budget, no most want far less social spending and the same or more in the DoD. balancing the budget is a very secondary goal.

I'm not convinced that they necessarily want less social spending (even though they use that slogan). I think they want to privatize it and to continue to let government subsidies it. Many Democrats do too. But, to your point, the budget is secondary. Past Republican Presidents have a far worse record balancing the budget than past Democratic Presidents.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

I want somebody who will fight for what is best for America and is willing to compromise to achieve this goal, even it means not getting everything he/she wants America is not one belief but a melting pot of beliefs. America is not a political party, but Americans. We have strayed form this and like to separate ourselves into conservative, liberal. We are Americans who deserve a voice and we were founded on compromise, so why not stick to what works and gets real results. I'm not saying compromise to the point that your views are no longer represented btw

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

My soul asks fighter. But my brain understands that the country on the edge of civil war and we need a leader who can reconcile the irreconcilable. So I'm voting for the fighter and pray for compromiser who will work with their opposition.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

Originally Posted by Tothian

1- No. That would be a horrible thing if I never ran for office. They need more people like me. Plus if you read the beginning of this thread, you would see that I actually was a member of my County's Republican Committee, from 2008 - 2010. I only chose to serve one term then. And I won as a write in candidate since nobody was running.

2- People deserve the right to carry guns. And that is an EXTREMELY offensive lie when liberal's talk about the woman's right to choose - but not the right of the baby's to choose to live. But if you really believe in a woman's right to murder baby's - perhaps you'll believe in a murderer's right to choose - to kill innocent people?

3- Bushes I & II were both very liberal. I don't care what party 'label' they were. Also they were each elected with the help of the Bilderberg Group. Neither respected the Constitution very much, nor could they balance the budget.

Re: Do you prefer to elect a fighter? or a compromiser?

Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog

I'm not convinced that they necessarily want less social spending (even though they use that slogan). I think they want to privatize it and to continue to let government subsidies it. Many Democrats do too. But, to your point, the budget is secondary. Past Republican Presidents have a far worse record balancing the budget than past Democratic Presidents.

If I could refine it a bit more, Republicans are all for milking the government for DoD and 'privatizing' all they can. The CONs are a subset, they are like the OP, a real Scrooge McDuck who's answer for everything that doesn't fit their agenda is 'liberal'. Small in number we have seen their worst and now hopefully the GOP can find a way out of the TP Bog.

I do have an odd feeling that once the basics are privatized the radicals in CONdom will demand an end to subsidies to social programs. How successful they will be is another story.